Revisionist game publishing

[Eldorian]

How can you expect physics to work when math in D&D is fundamentally different?

Pi = 4! Firecubes for the win!

Pi is still Pi. DnD has a discrete topology, and in this topology, a ball is what we call a square from a Euclidean topology point of view.

 

[rjdafoe]

Nerfed PC kobolds present the same problem. As written, they do not belong in the game setting. There may be one kobold lacking darkvision, there may be several. However, writing up kobolds, publishing them sans darkvision, and saying, "Look, here is your kobold," is not a workable PC race because we don't know WHY they lack darkvision.

That's where we differ I guess. I don't want or need a book explaining to me why this is different. It is different because as a PC (who incidentally are usually the only PCs in the world at the time) are already different from the other members of their race. It is a one off and can be explained in the character background if neccessary. There are no handfull of other PCs -

Rag the Kobold fighter is an adventurer because, as an infant he was exposed to a source of bright magical light. As a small child, it was obvious to the other kobolds that he was a detriment being blind in the dark. He was cast out of their clan, and hence is now an adventurer (PC). He considers himself an individual who is not dragged down by the normal limititions of his race.

There are lots of possibilities - an oportunities for those that care to explain it. It only has to be explained as an individual, not as race - if needed. There is usually an explanation of why he is an adventurer anyways, otherwise Rag the kobold would be happily doing kobold-y things in the dark with the other kobolds.

It is just fluff to me at this point. If a PC (a PC is RARE anyways in the default assumption) wants to be a xyz monster race, they are going to have to come up with their own reasons why they want to play that and why it should exist in the GMs world - if they care to explain it.

 

[catsclaw227]

Nerfed PC kobolds present the same problem. As written, they do not belong in the game setting.

Wait a sec... when did we get a PC kobold write-up?

We have one for NPCs in the MM, but we have one for PCs too? I must have missed this because I have been assuming we are talking about a hypothetical, potential PC write-up and making a bunch of assumptions.

 

[pawsplay]

Wait a sec... when did we get a PC kobold write-up?

We have one for NPCs in the MM, but we have one for PCs too? I must have missed this because I have been assuming we are talking about a hypothetical, potential PC write-up and making a bunch of assumptions.

We are. No cause for alarm.

 

[Obryn]

Wait a sec... when did we get a PC kobold write-up?

We have one for NPCs in the MM, but we have one for PCs too? I must have missed this because I have been assuming we are talking about a hypothetical, potential PC write-up and making a bunch of assumptions.

In case you haven't noticed, all this hand wringing is about...

(1) Completely non-existent and speculative Kobold PC writeups which don't include darkvision
(2) Concern that PC minotaurs can't pick up weapons dropped by NPC minotaurs, despite the fact that they can pick up any weapon in any minotaur stat block published to-date
(3) Several misunderstandings of 4e rules and an outdated idea of 4e design philosophy, mainly from people who generally don't know 4e rules and haven't kept up to date on 4e design philosophy.

It's basically a blueprint for an RPG messageboard thread.

-O

 

[MrMyth]

In case you haven't noticed, all this hand wringing is about...

(1) Completely non-existent and speculative Kobold PC writeups which don't include darkvision
(2) Concern that PC minotaurs can't pick up weapons dropped by NPC minotaurs, despite the fact that they can pick up any weapon in any minotaur stat block published to-date
(3) Several misunderstandings of 4e rules and an outdated idea of 4e design philosophy, mainly from people who generally don't know 4e rules and haven't kept up to date on 4e design philosophy.

It's basically a blueprint for an RPG messageboard thread.

Sadly, I must spread some experience points around before awarding them to Obryn again. But this post right here is absolute win, with an perfect summary of the thread.

 

[pawsplay]

4) People ignoring that the same problem in the NPC kobold is just as problematic for making NPCs
5) People continuing, seemingly, to defend darkblind kobolds and mini-taurs as good design, despite their nonexistence, and the likilihood the current design team would consider them bad design
6) Mass confusion over what the NPC minotaur is supposed to be, since it does not resemble a monster minotaur or a PC minotaur
7) People shocked and baffled why other people are annoyed or confused about things that do not bother them, perhaps even extending to a disbelief that other people exist at all

 

[keterys]

Nah, I think Obryn's more accurate there. Haven't run into any problems with kobolds or minotaurs in any of my games.

Have other people? In actual games, that they've run, I mean. Ie, no infinite oregano situations?

 

[Obryn]

4) People ignoring that the same problem in the NPC kobold is just as problematic for making NPCs

I, for one, am utterly unconcerned that some DM somewhere is brazenly making darkblind NPC kobolds without regard to setting integrity. I am also unconcerned that a DM somewhere is "cheating" by adding darkvision in blatant disrespect to the Rule of RAW. Is this something I, as a 4e DM and player, should be concerned about?

5) People continuing, seemingly, to defend darkblind kobolds and mini-taurs as good design, despite their nonexistence, and the likilihood the current design team would consider them bad design
6) Mass confusion over what the NPC minotaur is supposed to be, since it does not resemble a monster minotaur or a PC minotaur
7) People shocked and baffled why other people are annoyed or confused about things that do not bother them, perhaps even extending to a disbelief that other people exist at all

I'll try and address all of these, but I'd love to see a quote where someone doubts your existence.

In short. You're arguing non-simulationist rules from a simulationist perspective, and taking extremely loose (and IMO rushed and poorly-edited) guidelines meant for DM use as rules equal to, say, opportunity attacks or hit points. Much like happens with minions, of course they end up looking nonsensical.

Don't take, "I have a different gaming philosophy, and it doesn't bother me" to mean, "You have a different gaming philosophy, and are therefore wrong to be concerned." The latter does not follow from the former. What you're seeing is, "You have a different gaming philosophy, and therefore are wrong to tell me to be concerned."

I'm not going to argue that this way of approaching NPCs and PCs would work equally well for 3.5, or any other game which values simulation. I haven't seen anyone else do so, either. I'm arguing that this way of doing things is fine, particularly in the following context: how the 4e rules work, how they compartmentalize PCs and NPCs, and how they encourage results-oriented abstraction when it comes to NPC/monster stats. If you don't approach the 4e PC/NPC divide from these principles, you are not making a coherent argument as to why a 4e player/dm should share your concern, or even accept it as valid or meaningful for their game.

-O

 

[mudbunny]

I'm not going to argue that this way of approaching NPCs and PCs would work equally well for 3.5, or any other game which values simulation. I haven't seen anyone else do so, either. I'm arguing that this way of doing things is fine, particularly in the following context: how the 4e rules work, how they compartmentalize PCs and NPCs, and how they encourage results-oriented abstraction when it comes to NPC/monster stats. If you don't approach the 4e PC/NPC divide from these principles, you are not making a coherent argument as to why a 4e player/dm should share your concern, or even accept it as valid or meaningful for their game.

-O

If I am understanding you right, all of the discussion about internal consistency that is being tossed around here is ignoring one of the basic conceits of 4E: NPCs and PCs follow completely different rules.